Right to life

The term "right to life" is used in the abortion debate by those who wish to end the practice of abortion, or at least reduce the frequency of the practice,[1] and in the context of pregnancy, the term right to life was advanced by Pope Pius XII during a 1951 papal encyclical:

Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no society, no human authority, no science, no “indication” at all whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life… --- Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession Papal Encyclical, October 29, 1951.[2]

In 1966 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) asked Fr. James T. McHugh to begin observing trends in abortion reform within the United States.[3] The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) was founded in 1967 as the Right to Life League to coordinate its state campaigns under the auspices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.[4][5] To appeal to a more broad-based, nonsectarian movement, key Minnesota leaders proposed an organizational model that would separate the NRLC from the direct oversight of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and by early 1973 NRLC Director Fr. James T. McHugh and his executive assistant, Michael Taylor, proposed a different plan, facilitating the NRLC move toward its independence from the Roman Catholic Church.

Opponents of capital punishment argue that it is a violation of the right to life, while its supporters argue that the death penalty is not a violation of the right to life because the right to life should apply with deference to a sense of justice. The opponents believe that capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights, because the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a psychological torture. Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it "cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment", and Amnesty International considers it to be "the ultimate, irreversible denial of Human Rights".[8]

The United Nations General Assembly has adopted, in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016[9] non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition.[10]

The International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement has created a system whereby it is recognised that international human rights law is binding upon all state actors, and that said state actors must know and be capable of applying international standards for human rights.[11] The right to life is for the most part an inalienable right granted to every human upon the planet, however, there are certain situations in which state actors are required to take drastic action, which can result in civilians being killed by law enforcement agents.

Appropriate occasions for killings by law enforcement are strictly outlined by the International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement. Any lethal action taken by law enforcement agents must be taken following a certain set of rules that have been set out in the 'Use of Force' section of the Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police.[11] The essential tenet of the Pocket Book[11] surrounding the use of lethal force is that all other means of a non-violent nature should be employed initially, followed by proportionately appropriate use of force. Proportionately appropriate use of force can, and will in some circumstances, refer to lethal force if a law enforcement agent genuinely believes that ending the life of one civilian would result in the preservation of his life, or the lives of his fellow civilians, as is outlined in the 'Permissable [sic?] Circumstances for the Use of Firearms' section of the Pocket Book.[11] The Pocket Book[11] also outlines in the 'Accountability for the Use of Force and Firearms' section that there are stringent measures of accountability in place to maintain integrity within state law enforcement agencies as regards their right to the use of lethal force.

International institutions have outlined when and where law enforcement agents might have the availability of lethal force at their disposal. The International Association of Chiefs of Police have 'Model Policies' which incorporate various pieces of information from leading sources.[12] One of these model policies states that law enforcement agents will engage in reasonable necessary force to efficiently bring a scenario to a conclusion, giving specific thought to both the safety of themselves and other civilians. Law enforcement officers are given the prerogative to engage in department-approved methods to safely bring a conclusion to a scenario and are also given the ability to use issued equipment to resolve issues in scenarios where they are required to protect themselves or others from damage, to bring resistant individuals under control, or to safely conclude unlawful incidents. There is no mention as to what "reasonably necessary" should be interpreted as meaning, but there is reference made to the reasonable man method of determining how one should approach a scenario.[13] However, it has been highlighted through events such as the killing of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri,[14] which resulted in public unrest, that there is confusion and debate surrounding the use of firearms and lethal force. The 'Procedure for the Use of Firearms' section provides the process through which law enforcement agents must progress when using firearms. It states that they must identify themselves as a law enforcement agent, issue a clear warning, and give an adequate amount of time for response (providing that time would not likely result in harm being done to the agent or other civilians) before deadly force can be used within the bounds of international law.

While the Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police outlines the academic circumstances under which law enforcement agents may use lethal force, the literal scenarios in which police killings have occurred are also relevant. Rosenfeld[15] states that there is considerable literature that gives reason to believe that social conditions also have a part to play in how law enforcement killings can occur. Rosenfeld states that there are numerous studies that have been conducted which link law enforcement agents' use of lethal force to the area's rate of violent crime, the size of the non-indigenous population and the socioeconomic position of the community concerned.[16] Appropriating a blanket description of how police killings can occur across the board is difficult given the vast differences in social context from state to state.

Perry, Hall and Hall[17] discuss the phenomena across the United States of America which became highly charged and widely documented in late 2014, referring to the use of lethal force from white police officers on unarmed black male civilians.[18] There is no legal prerogative which gives law enforcement agents the ability to use lethal force based on the race of the person they are dealing with, there is only a legal prerogative to engage in lethal force if there is a reasonable fear for your life or the lives of others. However, the Propublica analysis of federal data on fatal police shootings between 2010 and 2012, showed that young black male civilians were 21 times more likely to be killed by police than young white male civilians.[19] The use of lethal force from law enforcement agents in the United States created widespread feeling amongst US citizens that they were not being protected by the police. The justice system mostly found that these agents acted within the boundaries of the law because the actions of the people who were shot were judged to be sufficiently questionable in character for the police officer to fear for their own life or the lives of others. Coppolo[20] investigated Connecticut law and reported that the use of lethal force must be followed by a report that determines whether the law enforcement agent's lethal force was proportionately necessary in the circumstances. Coppolo also stated that a reasonable lethal response must only be made when there is a reasonable belief that the facts you have been presented with could realistically result in a risk of death or grievous bodily harm.[21]

In Graham v. Connor,[22] a diabetic who was suffering from a blood-sugar episode was detained by an officer who witnessed circumstances that made him suspicious of Graham, the detaining of Graham resulted in multiple injuries to Graham, who then proceeded to sue the police for use of excessive force. The US Supreme Court did not find a diabetic episode in of itself to be potentially threatening to a law enforcement agent. The Supreme Court did find that the totality of circumstances must be considered at the time of the incident when judging the officer rather than considering the incident with carefully considered hindsight, which in the case of Graham's episode it was decided that the diabetic induced behavior on the face of it could be considered threatening to a law enforcement agent or other civilians. This makes it difficult to ascertain what constitutes a fair description of a valid scenario in which a law enforcement agent might use lethal force. In Tennessee v. Garner[23] officer Elton Hymon answered a burglary call; when he entered the backyard of the property in question, Hymon witnessed somebody fleeing and ordered the suspect, later identified as a 15-year old boy named Edward Garner, to stop. Garner began climbing the fence, and Hymon proceeded to fatally shoot him in the back of the head. The Supreme Court held that in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, a law enforcement officer who is in pursuit of somebody cannot use lethal force to conclude the pursuit unless the officer has reasonable belief that the person poses a significant threat of harm to the officer or others. In the United States where the Second Amendment grants civilians the right to bear arms,[24] any one person could pose a threat to a police officer's life or other civilians, as feasibly, any one person could be concealing a firearm.

In New Zealand, the Annual Police Conduct Report[25] found that over a decade the police had shot and killed seven people, one of whom was innocent and all cases of which the police were found to have been acting within their legal rights. New Zealand has a strict process through which any citizen wanting to legally use a firearm must go through; this creates an environment through which the standard civilian does not pose a default threat to law enforcement agents' lives or the lives of others.

The standard to which international law expects states to operate is the same across the board, lethal force must only be used by law enforcement agents when there is a real threat of harm to those law enforcement agents or other civilians. The reality is that each state is unique in what constitutes an appropriate situation for law enforcement agents to respond with lethal force due to states all around the world having their own unique environments, law, cultures and populations.

Those who believe a person should be able to make the decision to end their own life through euthanasia use the argument that persons have a right to choose ,[26] while those who oppose the legalization of euthanasia argue so on the grounds that all persons have a right to life. They are commonly referred to as right-to-lifers.[27]

• In 1444, the Poljica Statute declared a right to live "-for nothing existed forever".[28]
• In 1776, the United States Declaration of Independence declared that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
• In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

• In 1950, the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted by the Council of Europe, declaring a protected human right to life in Article 2. There are exceptions for lawful executions and self-defense, arresting a fleeing suspect, and suppressing riots and insurrections. Since then Protocol 6 of the Convention has called for nations to outlaw capital punishment except in time of war or national emergency, and at present this pertains in all countries of the Council. Protocol 13 provides for the total abolition of capital punishment, and has been implemented in most member countries of the Council.
• In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

— Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

• In 1969, the American Convention on Human Rights was adopted in San José, Costa Rica by many countries in the Western Hemisphere. It is in force in 23 countries.

Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

— Article 4.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights

• In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined that

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

— Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

• In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
• The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany holds the principle of human dignity paramount, even above the right to life.
• The Catholic Church has issued a Charter of the Rights of the Family[29] in which it states that the right to life is directly implied by human dignity.
• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950, guarantees the right to life to all persons within the territory of India and states: "No person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Article 21 confers on every person the fundamental right to life and personal liberty which has become an inexhaustible source of many other rights.[30]

• Right to Life on the Children's Rights Portal
• Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession. Pius XII. October 29, 1951.